User talk:98.204.201.79

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Unsourced comments such as this one constitute vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Edits such as this one are vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Edits deleting sourced references such as these are vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.204.201.79) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ~YellowFives 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are not vandalism, but it would be best for you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Five pillars so that you can ensure that you are editing according to those policies. Also, I really do strongly recommend that you create an account. The unfortunate truth is that you probably will not be treated like a human being until you make an account. It shouldn't be that way, and people editing from IPs should be treated well, but this is the current reality of the social system on Wikipedia. So please stick around, make an account, familiarize yourself with the policies, and don't get discouraged. ~YellowFives 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Epee, 5 escalating warnings of an editor in a row would be more on the "wikihounding" and "disruptive" side of things. You might want to rethink your line of action here. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I only came to this page once, never having interacted with this editor before, and reacted to each edit as I scrolled through them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I see you left a note for me. Just so you know why I thought you were making disruptive edits, let me share what I saw, and please let me know if I misunderstood. If I did, I apologize.

First, I noticed your reversed the black and white population percentages for an area. I checked census.gov, and confirmed it was the opposite of your edit. Perhaps you can explain?

Second, in your next edit you inserted unsourced text, so that the Wikpedia article says the Nation of Islam worshipped a false prophet. The general rule on Wikipedia (and I'm paraphrasing--I can look for the precise rule if you like) is that if you are going to make an addition that you can anticipate may be contentious (and saying people worshipped a false prophet would IMHO fall into that category), you should add a footnote to a "reliable source" that reflects that your source (or someone in it) made the statement themselves. In other words, you can't just put your subjective opinion into an article. You might do that in a blog, in your own name, but the rules here are you can't simply revise Wikipedia articles to make accusations like that as though they are fact. This is especially sensitive when, as here, the accusations are made as to living people.

Third, I noticed that in your next edit you again inserted unsourced opinion as fact. Same issue.

Fourth, I saw that you inserted what one might view as snarky commentary as article text. Same comment. For a blog, in your own name, that may be fine. But not in a Wikipedia article.

Fifth, you deleted a reference that did mention "100 ..." saying (incorrectly) that it didn't. Your edit summary is not true. Because the source did support the statement, it was innappropriate to delete it.

Seventh, you then deleted a sourced statement and its reference saying "if that doesn't define POV, I don't know what does". Its perfectly fine on Wikipedia to quote a relevant source who has a point of view -- as long as you insert a footnote that reflects that he made the statement. The wikipedia prohibition against POV isn't against the people quoted having points of view. Its against the point of view of the ediitor unduly impacting the edits he makes.

If all of those edits were simply mistakes, and a result of your not knowing these rules, I apologize for warning you for being disruptive. Feel free to ask me any questions that you may have, and I'll be happy to guide you as best I can, or refer you to others where my knowledge is simply too limited. I'm happy to "adopt" you, if you like, to help you throught the ropes here. Or not -- its of course up to you, and simply an offer.

P.S.--the best place to reply to me is either below my comments here, or on my talk page. Either way, I should see them. If you go to one of the articles mentioned in the above edits, and leave word for me there, I may well not see it.

Right. None of these edits were vandalism. None of them warranted vandalism warnings. They did warrant a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message coupled with a friendly pointer to our policies. And when I gave that, Epeefleche snapped at me. I still see no self-awareness that Epeefleche did anything wrong. This IP editor should know that we are having a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Epeefleche abusing Twinkle, harassing IP editor and User:98.204.201.79 is welcome to participate there.

For the record on this IP's page, Epeefleche is absolutely wrong about the edit to Montgomery Village, Maryland, and this is already explained in the AN/I thread. The summary of "Sixth" is fairly misleading, too, and "Seventh" may arguably be warranted under WP:UNDUE, regardless of how well sourced. This discussion ought to be taking place at AN/I, and if it had not been ignored, Epeefleche's embarrassing mistake about Montgomery Village wouldn't have happened twice. ~YellowFives 15:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to 98.204.201.79: You are not obligated to answer any questions before you begin editing again. I do suggest that you register an account. Feel free to contact me at User talk:YellowFives if you need advice or have any questions. ~YellowFives 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Eric Forman appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.